My Investing Process

Translate This Page

Become a Fan

Entrepreneurs have never had it easy. Gavin Weightman's fascinating journey (The Industrial Revolutionaries)on start ups from the Industrial Revolution into to early 1900's makes that very clear.

Weightman traces entrepreneurial activity in Europe, America and Japan from 1776 until WW I, moving seamlessly between countries, inventions and people who helped make the world what we know it today. And one of the fascinating facts is that the earliest entrepreneurs, who put the world on the track to electric lighting, wireless telegraphy and automobiles often were the losers in the game. Who knew that Samuel Morse invented neither the telegraph or the "Morse" code? Morse, for example, was a fantastic marketer who co-opted others inventions as his own in the era of poorly written and unenforced patents across international boundaries. Other entrepreneurs simply copied inventions without innovation, such as the Japanese in the early 20th century.

Perhaps the most interesting observation is Weightman's last one. In the Postscript, he observes that the grand master reporter of the Industrial Revolution, Adam Smith missed the boat on what was happening around him. For example,he was familiar with the steam engine, but never understood the importance of them in revolutionizing manufacturing. Such is also true today, in that no matter how smart we are, it is difficult to predict how innovations will change our lives. I guess that's just part of our human experience.

Roger Edward Jones, a good friend and insightful sales consultant just published a neat article on selling in low or no-growth markets. I'll share the up front summary--more on his website:

"Over the past year or so, I've been getting a consistent message from leaders responsible for complex and big-ticket sales:

It's getting harder and harder to differentiate an offering to any substantive degree.

In low and no-growth markets (and worse), there's no longer scope for differentiating through price cuts.

So, what's working?

A new breed of salesperson is emerging that seems to be genetically programmed to thrive in these conditions. A few weeks ago I used the term 'fisherman' as a description.

But there's more to it, it seems.

My argument was that the hunters and farmers of the past are endangered since the landscape has changed beyond recognition. To recap:

The difference today is of course the volume and quality of intelligence available to salespeople. Not only can you easily identify a prospect organisation, you can often read about the tastes, preferences, life history and activities of key executives. The prey is in full view.

The hunter is a dying breed since he or she does not have patience to play the long game.

The farmer is a dying breed because overservicing is unaffordable. While 80% of business comes from 20% of clients, the farmer finds it hard to deviate from his 'round'.

But what if you could combine the charismatic power of the hunter and the methodical and caring qualities of the farmer to produce a hybrid with foresight and patience.

The fisherman.

A new challenger for the Supreme Salesperson title?

In a a book called The Challenger Sale, the authors introduce the notion of "salesperson as teacher".

This positions the salesperson as consultant, in the true sense of the word and not by ego-enhancing but inauthentic job title.

It seems that winning salespeople are showing prospective clients how to better compete in their market*.

This means that salespeople have to possess the expertise and vision to see how products and services can yield strategic benefits to an organisation.

Big call.

According to the authors, it signals an end to warm and fuzzy relationships as the basis of success.

Another take on this comes from authors Erik Peterson and Timothy Riesterer in Conversations That Win the Complex Sale.

As with the challenger sale, it introduces the notion that prospects need to be "shaken up" and "challenged".

I take it to mean that this goes beyond the passive role of "problem solver" where the problem is teased out of the client.

The authors argue that with many/most industries being perceived as commodities, using what they call "conversations" rather than a proposition based pitch, provides the basis for differentiation,

"Be bold: Startle your prospects, and shake them up."

Challenging the prospective client's assumptions on a regular basis is the most effective sales technique, they argue.

This (literally) challenges Selling 101 in so many ways. We were taught to identify needs and emphasise product and/or service attributes that will potentially benefit the prospect. These should not be generic benefits for a product or service class, we should always have USPs.

The authors argue that the prospect has already determined that your product class is a commodity and is thus immune from any talk of a USP.

"For many salespeople, the biggest roadblock is the status quo, not the competition", say Peterson and Riesterer.

Inertia is the enemy, and they encourage salespeople to "Make your prospects feel pain, and present your product or service as pain relief."

From "sales consultant" to sales consultant

To be a regarded as an authentic consultant, you must present a distinct and relevant point of view.

The key to this practice is to help the prospect visualise upcoming challenges. This naturally requires the salesperson to provide an insight that is as yet not known or fully understood by the prospect.

I'm yet to be convinced that avoiding pain is the only or primary reason why a prospect would sit up and take notice, but it is a reason.

It could equally be an unknown or unrealised opportunity.

One potential flaw in the authors' logic is that the salesperson must be better able to "provide pain relief" than a competitor. In other words, there must indeed be a USP (unless I'm missing something).

The salesperson as a visionary

If there's little scope for substantive differentiation in a market the sale is won by the organisation that can better engage the prospect. While there are many touch-points the salesperson is crucial in big-ticket and complex sales.

A Case Story that provides an insight is central to success. If this can be achieved, the salesperson is a visionary.

If he or she can provide the prospect with a competitive strategy insight (missed opportunity, unseen threat) then engagement, and a conversation rather than a pitch, will ensue.

According to Scott Kirchner of Innovation Economy, CasePick Systems is a company who is, like Kiva Systems, revolutionizing warehouse operations with robots. The company was acquired by C&S Wholesale Grocers, a privately held New Hampshire company. Here's what Scott had to say:

"I got a chance to see the bots in action until last month, at the company’s Wilmington headquarters. Baum wanted to talk about the company’s new name, Symbotic, and its hiring spree. He had just returned from Newburgh, N.Y., where Symbotic’s first production system is deployed at a C&S warehouse. The warehouse assembles cases on wooden pallets, which are then trucked to Stop & Shop stores in New York. The system consists of 168 bots that move boxes at up to 25 miles per hour.

Symbotic’s proposition is that bots are not only more efficient but that companies that purchase its technology can store more product in less space.

Jim Baum, the CEO, did not want me to shoot video of the bots in action - “We’re still slightly paranoid,’’ he said - but I did get to see them moving merchandise around a test track. The bots followed white tape on the floor and used finger-like rods that extend horizontally to pull boxes off of a shelf. They communicated wirelessly with a computer that told them where to pick up and drop off the items and ensured that they would avoid collisions. They can also ride elevators.

The robots are built primarily from locally sourced components, Baum said, and are assembled in Wilmington.

How is Symbotic different from Kiva Systems, the better-known warehouse robotics company in North Reading?

One example would be filling a box with three pairs of shoes for a Zappos.com order. Symbotic, on the other hand, builds short, squat bots that grab closed boxes and bring them to another robot that puts them onto pallets to be trucked to a store.

Baum said the company will probably double in size this year, to 200 employees.

But I didn’t get a chance to see the bots in action until last month, at the company’s Wilmington headquarters. Baum wanted to talk about the company’s new name, Symbotic, and its hiring spree. He had just returned from Newburgh, N.Y., where Symbotic’s first production system is deployed at a C&S warehouse. The warehouse assembles cases on wooden pallets, which are then trucked to Stop & Shop stores in New York. The system consists of 168 bots that move boxes at up to 25 miles per hour.

Symbotic’s proposition is that bots are not only more efficient but that companies that purchase its technology can store more product in less space.

Baum did not want me to shoot video of the bots in action - “We’re still slightly paranoid,’’ he said - but I did get to see them moving merchandise around a test track. The bots followed white tape on the floor and used finger-like rods that extend horizontally to pull boxes off of a shelf. They communicated wirelessly with a computer that told them where to pick up and drop off the items and ensured that they would avoid collisions. They can also ride elevators.

The robots are built primarily from locally sourced components, Baum said, and are assembled in Wilmington.

How is Symbotic different from Kiva Systems, the better-known warehouse robotics company in North Reading?

One example would be filling a box with three pairs of shoes for a Zappos.com order. Symbotic, on the other hand, builds short, squat bots that grab closed boxes and bring them to another robot that puts them onto pallets to be trucked to a store.

Baum said the company will probably double in size this year, to 200 employees.

You and your family have created accounts. It’s been a mad dash. You’ve maxed out your credit cards. Your service is done. Now you wait.

And wait.

And wait.

According to Xconomy, Lots of people have ideas, but very few ideas gain much traction, and in those first few months it’s disheartening to see your subscriber numbers inch up far too slowly for anyone’s good. Every little bit of encouragement helps. That’s why the guys at ZipWhip (a service that basically lets you sync your text messages with your desktop) created an Arduino-powered flag to alert them when they got a new customer. The service itself is ready to go and waiting, they just wanted a way to celebrate when somebody created an account. And celebrate they do, cheering wildly as the flag slowly raises like the arm of Victory high above the bloodbath that is modern start-up creation.

“It’s a ton of fun to see something visual happen each time we get a new user,” they wrote on their blog. They’ve also released the plans and source code in their blog post so you and yours can build a flag, say, for celebrating new Twitter followers or to signal when it’s time to change your shirt (once a day is customary, but I’ve seen once a week work fine for many start-up founders).

I know, it sounds a little corny. But little rewards go a long way when long hours, low salaries and the promise of riches someday are the saily bread at a startup....

Thanks to Business Insider for a great post on avoiding disaster in your start up.

As a co-founder of five start-ups and a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, David Feinleib has seen both sides of the startup world. From 2009 to 2011, he was a general partner at Mohr Davidow Ventures, where he got his fair share of terrible pitches. He's also an entrepreneur. He's sold two startups, Consera (to HP) and onDevice (to Keynote Systems), and is still running three others he cofounded: Speechpad, Onepo.st, and Likewise.

Despite his success as an entrepreneur, Feinleib felt like everyone was focusing on all their attention on the startups who made it big like Facebook. The reality is that eight out of 10 business fail in their first three years and venture capitalists only fund the top 1 percent of pitches they see, he said.

Feinleib gave us a cheat sheet and told us 13 things startups do that make them fail:

There's no place for your product: "Investors are fond of debating which they care about more: the market or the entrepreneur. The reality is, great entrepreneurs find great markets. Many startups never achieve the elusive product-market fit. Some companies, like Facebook and Zynga, find product-market fit right out of the gate. Or at least they appear to. Others, like Intuit, go along for years until they crack the code."

Your product sucks: "Many potentially great companies fail because they deliver bad products. No one sets out to build a bad product. So how do they end up getting built? You can still suffer from product blindness—using your product so much that you work around the difficulties, the friction that prevents mass adoption. Just consider file sharing company Dropbox. There were other file sharing products before Dropbox, but Dropbox kept the product simple and made it easy to use."

You don't have vision or chops: "There’s the romantic notion of starting something—of being your own boss, running your own show, and building what you want to build. But being a successful entrepreneur means being a visionary—and being able to execute your way to making that vision a reality. "

You burn too much money on sales and marketing early on: "For every venture dollar invested, I estimate that more than two-thirds goes into sales and marketing costs and only a third into product development—sometimes less. Spending on sales and marketing too early means no return if customers or users don’t bite. Once you up the burn, it’s hard to go back. So make sure you have product-market fit before ramping sales and marketing.

Only your friends use your product: "So you’ve got a great market and a killer product. A few people have heard of it—the only problem is, they’re all friends of yours. Like the tree falling in the empty forest, thousands of great products have gone unused because no one knew they existed. They’re not just unknown—they’re invisible. How do you get the word out in a crowded market without incinerating cash? Build the best product and generate a lot of buzz around your brand."

You don't know how to use others to build scale: "Lots of companies can get a few users or sell a few products. Few can do that at scale, in a repeatable, efficient way. Today’s startups use highly leveraged approaches—freemium, word of mouth, partner strategies, and viral acquisition to drive highly leverage growth. You should too. "

No one can understand what you're saying: "Communication can make or break a startup. As I heard an investor once ask an entrepreneur, 'if you can’t communicate your pitch effectively to us, why should we think you’ll be able to communicate effectively to your team?' His words stuck in my mind and he was right. Words matter." Speaker training is a good idea. "One time an entrepreneur gave a pitch and looked down at the conference table the whole time. Didn't make eye contact. It was painful."

Your pitch is too long. "It's bad when people realize they're running out of time but they just start speaking faster instead of bumping up a level. They try to fit more in. It all gets lost in details. It's awkward for everyone and really hurts the pitch."

Your pitch doesn't play on emotions. "Many entrepreneurs get in front of people with access to capital but failed to convince their audience to invest. A huge part of pitching comes down to psychology and emotion. Investors are primarily motivated by two things: greed and fear."

You make excuses: "Time and again I hear someone say they have a great idea for a company but they just don’t want to give up their current job to pursue their idea. Other times people have great ideas, but aren’t sure how to get going. Starting a company is hard. Yet dozens of people, when I asked why they decided to start something new, gave me the same answer: 'I realized if I didn’t do it now, I’d never be able to do it'.”

You lack focus: "When I got my first check (actually, it was a wire transfer) from a venture investor some ten years ago, he gave me one piece of advice. 'Focus wins.' The advice is as sound today as it was when he gave it to me. In a startup, you could be doing any one of a thousand things. But focus tells you which one thing to do to win."

There's a lot of drama: "A lot of startups fail because they suffer from drag. They go after small markets, build the wrong product, the founders don’t get along, or they make it too hard for users or customers to use their products. These issues create what I refer to as startup drag. Entrepreneurs have to be eternal optimists but with sufficient pragmatism to make their optimism reality. Get too much drag and it’s easy to lose the optimism and confidence that breeds success."

"This is the last money we'll ever need": "Don't say that. It just sounds naive. But most early stage companies need more money. Investors are in the business of investing money. They want to hear how you're going to win, how you're going to be the market leader, not how you won't need their money."